Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the undocumented Central American children entering along the U.S.-Mexico border should be treated as refugees, a new poll shows.

According to a poll released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute, 69 percent of those surveyed believe U.S. authorities should treat the children as refugees and allow them to stay in the country if it is determined it is not safe for them to return to their home country. Twenty-seven percent of Americans say the children should be treated as illegal immigrants and should be deported.

Seventy-one percent also say they mostly or completely agree that the U.S. should provide refuge and protection for all people who come to the U.S. if they are fleeing serious danger in their home country, the poll found. But 59 percent of Americans say they mostly or completely agree with the statement that the allowing the children to stay will increase illegal immigration.

(…)

Seventy-nine percent of Americans call the situation along the border a “crisis” or a “serious” problem and 80 percent said they had heard at least a little about the border situation.

This is one of the first polls that I’ve seen trying to survey public opinion on the issue of the border crisis since it became a prominent issue in the news last month. Given some of the vehemently negatively reactions that we have seen to these children and the other migrants that have arrived at the border in areas ranging from California and Arizona to even Virginia and Massachusetts, it does come as somewhat of a surprise. However, the result is also consistent with other recent polling on immigration issues generally that have shown the American public as a whole, as opposed to Republicans, conservatives, and people who associate themselves with the Tea Party movement, as being far more open to the idea of immigration reform, granting legal status to people who are in the country illegally, and expanding the opportunities for legal immigration. The American people are, in other words, a compassionate people and this seems to be just another reflection of all of that. When we see the screaming mobs in various parts of the country, or the rhetoric of political leaders like Rick Perry, we should keep in mind that they don’t necessarily represent the American people as a whole.

As for the border crisis as a whole, while it has slipped from the headlines in the wake of things such as the conflict in Gaza and the downing of Flight 17 in Ukraine, there is still apparently a steady stream of migrants coming to the border area. By some accounts, the numbers for July have been lower than in previous months, but this may be as much due to the fact that it is July and weather conditions make travel more dangerous as anything else. Meanwhile, Congress is mere days away from going on a five week vacation, which will be followed by a September in which they are only scheduled to be in session for less than 20 days before heading off for the final push to the midterm elections. So far, there seems to be only the slimmest of hopes that any bill to address the border crisis will pass before they leave town at the end of the week. Right now, the House is scheduled to vote on a bill that includes some $650 million in additional funding, which is only a small portion of the $3.7 billion the President is asking for. However, it’s not even certain that such a bill can pass the House, never mind the Senate, and it isn’t at all clear that the President would consider the bill acceptable. The most likely outcome is that nothing will be passed before the end of the week, and that the issue will get largely ignored during the short September session when a budget must be completed. Instead, it will just end up being another whipping boy during the midterm campaigns, and nothing at all will get done as these children continue coming across the border.

Related Posts:

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

According to a poll released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute, 69 percent of those surveyed believe U.S. authorities should treat the children as refugees and allow them to stay in the country if it is determined it is not safe for them to return to their home country. Twenty-seven percent of Americans say the children should be treated as illegal immigrants and should be deported.

Why am I skeptical of this polling?

If the president directly proclaimed, “we should treat the children as refugees and allow them to stay in the country if it is determined it is not safe for them to return to their home country,” I have no doubt that 47% of the country would oppose him and accuse him of being weak and soft on immigration, and congressional Republicans would robotically denounce the president and call for more border enforcement and more deportations.

I personally think he SHOULD say, “we should treat these children as refugees and allow them to stay in the country if it is determined it is not safe for them to return to their home country.” It would be right and moral.

The American people are, in other words, a compassionate people and this seems to be just another reflection of all of that.

Which people are not a compassionate people?

(This formulation of “the American people are kind / compassionate / family-oriented etc.” annoys me, as it kind of implies that there are other nationalities who are not. It’s not an American trait. It’s a human trait).

Of course, there’s also the issue that there are millions of other children as worse or even worse off right now in places such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, the Congo, Afghanistan, etc. I’m for letting more political refugees in — but then that should be an across the board policy, and not just apply to Central Americans who have the geographical advantage of living close to the US, and not to those who live overseas and can’t get here on their own.

(For one thing, as war reparations I’d offer a US visa to every Iraqi child who wanted one. Since we screwed up their country it’s literally the least we can do to resettle them here).

@Neil Hudelson: Msryland Governor O’Malley expressed criticism at the President for wanting to send some of these people back. Then he turned around and said not to bring them to his state.
A recent report showed that the state of Ohio has been receiving large numbers of these people but gets no help from the federal government. With the states cutting budgets in recent years, it will strain all of the programs: schools (most are overcrowded and underfunded), medical, social services, and law enforcement. The adults always manage to find work; they don’t want a handout.
But these are children. Most schools do not have enough esl instructors and interpreters. Most people are not going to favor a tax increase. Now the country is facing new threats and crises overseas that could effect things here, all the while cutting the military budget.
I don’t know what the answer is. Maybe send some leaders down to Central America and see what the problem is and get some changes down there. The US can’t take on their problems.
“Not in my backyard”

don’t buy into it at all. these illegals are not refugees from anything other than poverty which is a result of corrupt and uncaring governments run by and for cronies (kinda like here in the USA) , we have no requirement to do anything other than protect our borders and our citizens from the onslaught.

Msryland Governor O’Malley expressed criticism at the President for wanting to send some of these people back. Then he turned around and said not to bring them to his state.

Ok. Your point?

A recent report showed that the state of Ohio has been receiving large numbers of these people but gets no help from the federal government. With the states cutting budgets in recent years, it will strain all of the programs: schools (most are overcrowded and underfunded), medical, social services, and law enforcement.

Agreed that this is a problem, and that Congress needs to act. President Obama has asked for $3 billion to deal with the problem. Governors need to be working with their congressional delegation to increase funding.

The adults always manage to find work; they don’t want a handout.
But these are children.

How about you take a moment and rethink this statement and its implications.

Now the country is facing new threats and crises overseas that could effect things here, all the while cutting the military budget.

Not really. Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are facing crises. Those crises might affect our foreign policy. It is doubtful they will affect life here in any meaningful way. I’m not aware of the military budget being cut–only reducing future spending. Additionally, our military isn’t involved in solving any of the current international crises, so I’m not really sure what your point is, or how their budget is affecting the crises’ outcomes.

With the states cutting budgets in recent years, it will strain all of the programs: schools (most are overcrowded and underfunded),

You’ve already amply demonstrated you have no real knowledge of the state of our current school systems when you claimed that schools no longer teach grammar.

@Rafer Janders: For one thing, as war reparations I’d offer a US visa to every Iraqi child who wanted one. Since we screwed up their country it’s literally the least we can do to resettle them here).

As far as I know the United States is one of the few nations that does not recognize the children fathered by it’s soldiers when on active duty in a foreign theater to be US citizens. Vietnam for instance.
I do not think we gave them visas either.

The problem is that “U.S. authorities should treat the children as refugees and allow them to stay in the country if it is determined it is not safe for them to return to their home country” is a ridiculously vague statement without specifying what constitutes “determining it is not safe for them to return to their home country”.

@CB: The father has to take active steps to establish paternity, among other things. If steps are followed, citizenship is granted. The rationale is to prevent an influx of foreign children claiming to have an American father. Or soldiers claiming paternity of children of women they meet overseas.

It’s been said many times before, but right wing conservatives are the biggest bunch of pansies in America, scared of literally everything.

Children showing up on the border? It’s an onslaught.
African American President? He’s a sleeper agent who will kill us all through something something marxism.
Reducing the world’s largest military budget by 1%? Russia/China/Scary Arabs will invade us tomorrow.

Pretty much the only thing they aren’t scared of is the actual, demonstrable, scientifically proven catastrophe that’s occurring right now due to climate change.

When the topic of immigration comes up , restrictionist ask how many of the 100 million plus people who want to come to the U.S. should be kept out. Judging by the results of this poll, the answer for most Americans is to let them all in.

I wonder how people would answer if asked if they are willing to pay higher taxes to support refugees from the third world. I suspect the answer would be different.

Not that it matters, but I’ve always favored increased immigration as I believe most people wanting to come to America want to come for the same reasons as all those who came before — a better life, and they are willing to work for that. I would prefer that it be done in an orderly, above board manner for the benefit of all concerned. My comment is more of a shot at poll driven analysis as though some momentary percentage of generally uninformed people answering a false dichotomy is in any sense meaningful at all. Or are we handing out the pottery shards now?

I do not blame anyone trying to get here. I know I would if I were in some of the situations and places most of these people are running from. But there is another side to that equation. We can only successfully assimilate so many at a time without unduly stressing the local infrastructures where these people land. The perfect remains the enemy of the good. Rather short shrift seems to be given to the real local problems by the people advocating at the national level. Is the federal government’s primary responsibility the welfare of its citizens or those who want to become citizens when those interests conflict?

Franklin, am I back? Don’t know. I do know I tire quickly of the partisan rancor and know-nothing bad faith accusations so quickly thrown whenever a shibboleth is opposed or questioned. I’d love to have some of the back and forth I experienced here seven or eight years ago when there were passionate, but respectful, discussions of topics. I’m sure I helped contribute to the decline in decorum in my own inimitable ways, and for that I apologize. What started as clever banter and snark devolved rather quickly to mean, dispiriting insults that offered heat but no light. I’m trying to do better so I will beg your indulgence and ask in advance for forgiveness if I lapse. Perhaps if OTB offered the ability I’ve seen in some places to ignore certain commenters this task would be easier, but then who ever said the marketplace of ideas was supposed to be easy.

The father has to take active steps to establish paternity, among other things. If steps are followed, citizenship is granted. The rationale is to prevent an influx of foreign children claiming to have an American father. Or soldiers claiming paternity of children of women they meet overseas.

I’m sorry, I’m confused on this point. Is this different from normal procedure? Doesn’t the child of an American born somewhere else have to prove their parentage as well when they come or is it just “Hey, this kid belongs to me – chill”? If an American civilian has an affair with a foreign national and leaves w/o knowledge of the pregnancy, what steps does the child and/or foreign parent have to take to establish their birthrights?

Well said, although I’ll defend my original snarky reply to your first post. Your second post was much more explanatory as to what you meant, whereas your first post really read (and still does without context) as “my principle is to not let starving children in.”

@KM: Also keep in mind that for Vietnam at least, combat tours were one and done 12 month, (13 for the MC) tours. If the woman becomes pregnant halfway through the soldiers tour then by the time the kid is born the soldier is out of country and almost always out of the military. So the woman has to file with the military and then the father has to be tracked down in civilian life 1/2 a world away and confirm paternity. Pretty easy to be less than energetic in investigating the claim and let the paper trail die.

The latest wars have a different dynamic given the professional military and repeated tours but there are a lot fewer (as in very, very few) instances of social contact between local women and soldiers in the ME than there was in SE Asia. Not much of an issue today.

@Deserttrek: Poverty is a form of violence. Period. Corruption is a form of violence. There is nothing more immoral than abandoning a child with nowhere to go because you don’t mind the way in which they’re being brutalized. Children in these countries are being murdered, raped and enslaved to make a buck and I fail to see how that is any different than being murdered, raped and enslaved for religion or politics.

@al-Ameda: While I sympathize with those whose home countries are unsafe, there are children in America who live in unsafe environments, too.
We should devote our resources to helping Americans first. When that has been dealt with, THEN and only then should we help those from other countries who seek refuge. Until then, send them back. Their violent home countries are not our fault and we do have a responsibility to help Americans, who are legal residents, first.

@mantis: I agree. We can and we should BUT Obama seems fixated on helping people from other nations first, even those who have no legal right to be here. His amnesty programs make a mockery of those who came here, applied for citizenship and got it. He has forgotten that Americans are a President’s FIRST priority.

@Tillman: You have a point but he seems hell bent on making this country the safe zone for any and all who demand to be allowed to stay, regardless of legal status. The Constitution does not say that all who demand citizenship must have it. Obama has done an end run around our immigration laws to cater to specific groups and used
“humanitarian reasons” to justify accepting immigrants who just can’t be bothered to follow the rules. Granted that their home country may not a safe haven for them BUT if you accept his reasoning, the residents of all countries with similar problems must be allowed to come here. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot accept all who wish to come here. I also do not believe that he is concerned about Constitutional issues as much as he is on appearing to be the “good guy” to enlarge the Democratic base. He panders to those whose voting pattern agrees with his
agenda. That is a typical politician. This does not excuse his blatant attempts to suck up to potential voters by admitting immigrants who are largely uneducated, unskilled, and unqualified to support themselves and their families without a lot of financial assistance from us at the expense of American citizens in need.

By ignoring our immigration laws to allow existing illegals to stay and trying to permit the unaccompanied minors to find a safe haven. We have always had immigrants wishing to come and stay here. I don’t recall any prior group having the arrogance to deliberately ignore our laws, park themselves here and having the unmitigated gall to DEMAND that we grant them admittance or citizenship. This is outrageous conduct on the part of the illegals and on Obama’s part by changing our laws to accommodate the illegals and excusing their “anything goes” behavior when generations of immigrants have done it the right way in the past. He is absolutely on the wrong side of this issue. Reform our laws, do not grant amnesty.

First, all religions and people who insist Illegal Aliens should be in the USA should foot the bill for them entirely out of their own pockets, the cost is not to be passed on to anyone else.

Vatican City should also take in all the Illegal Aliens themselves and also foot the bill entirely themselves, again, the cost is not to be passed onto anybody else.

2nd: The R-L Paradigm is False…They both work for the same Globalist Masters, the Un-Federal reserve, the Banksters and Corporations who run the USA. Stop falling for this…It’s B.S. foisted onto the people who haven’t learned yet that this R-L Paradigm is a sham.

3rd: Illegal Aliens, not to be WORD SMITHED into anything else other than what they truely are were given cheat sheets and were given the excuse of CREDIBLE FEAR.

4th: NORTH AMERICAN UNION, RECONQUISTA-AZTLAN, UPCOMING GLOBAL GOVERNMENT PLAN to end the Sovereignty of all nations and Merge them into blocks.

The NORTH AMERICAN UNION is the plan to Destroy the USA and MERGE the former USA with Mexico and Canada…This is already being done right under our noses with the full approval of most USA Politicians of Both Parties and Most Main-Scream Media who thinks it’s wonderful to have Unsecured USA Borders and Unenforced USA Immigration laws and keeps lying about the actual status of Illegal Aliens and calling them other than what the Illegals really are.

This NAU is being piggybacked onto RECONQUISTA-AZTLAN which is the plan to reclaim the former Mexican territory ranging from the states of CA to CO-TX. This is why most USA Politicians thinks Illegal Aliens are so wonderful along with extremely Dangerous Policy of Unsecured USA Borders and Unenforced USA Immigration laws..Why do these people court INVASION of the USA? Do you really want another version of GENGHIS KAHN, Atilla the Hun or Boudica to invade? ……..Already found have been prayer rugs, so most people with COMMON SENSE would know this Policy is a very foolish and dangerous policy which USA Politicians and people like Mr. Mataconis vigerously promote.

I didn’t make this NAU up. LOU DOBBS warned about this NAU on CNN…Vicente Fox mentioned the NAU on the Larry King show and JEROME CORSI broke the story on the NAU.

Outside of CHEAP LABOR, the NORTH AMERICAN UNION is the reason why most USA POLITICIANS keep their lips permanently glued to the rumps of ILLEGAL ALIENS…

5th: Anybody remember the 1986 AMNESTY? I sure do and the result was to entice even more Illegal Aliens to come….This is why I fought DACA also which, true to form proved to attract more Illegal Aliens.

The prevailing attitude of the ILLEGAL ALIENS also seems to be they’re Never satisfied with what they were granted..They always want more!

Many ILLEGAL ALIENS including DACA recipients have NO loyalty to the USA and they also DEMAND that USA Borders remain Unsecured and USA Immigration law remain mocked and unenforced…and keep the gravy train going and an example of blatant DISRESPECT for the USA and its CITIZENRY was displayed by this “AMAZING” DACA ILLEGAL ALIEN in Mr. MATACONIS’s article-Video: Undocumented Immigrant (there goes that WORD SMITHING AGAIN) Cornering Steve King is “AMAZING.”…..What is “AMAZING” is how Mr. Matoconis thought this was so “amazing.” I found it disgusting.

6th: Also, I have to question the sanity and integrity of any person who thinks it’s a great idea to have Unsecured Borders and Unenforced Immigration laws. At the very least, where’s their common sense?..

Anybody who demands to have the DANGEROUS policy of UNSECURED Borders and Unenforced Immigration laws should be considered an ENEMY. There is nothing safe or sane about this policy.